This whole series is a trainwreck. They’re so horrible, but you can’t stop reading in disgusted awe of how horrifying this woman’s writing can get. To be honest, the only reason I keep reviewing them is so you can know how repulsively racist and inaccurate they are so you can spare your children an extremely damaging “education.” I realize this doesn’t sound very professional and I try to keep these reviews fairly professional, but these books don’t deserve that.
These books cause harm. Period.
So, I’ll just jump into the chapter-by-chapter breakdown. I mostly just pull terrible and inaccurate quotes
from the text because these books are so bad. Sometimes there’s too many
horrible quotes to pull, so I will try to summarize the best I can.
The cover statement says “Details of the world’s greatest
land bargains. News of an expedition to unmapped territory west of the wide
Mississippi. And stories of a very powerful Indian leader…”
US history is not “land bargains,” it’s theft. These aren’t
“the world’s greatest land bargains,” they’re Europeans buying and selling land
that doesn’t even belong to them in the first place. Land that was claimed
through violent invasion and colonization. Land that was claimed without the
consent of the Native nations whose land it is.
Preface – “Getting a Nation Started.”
This preface is basically all opinion. She inserts her
baseless and odd opinions throughout her writing, but this whole thing is her
opinions about this time period, not really any history. Honestly, the entire
series is largely her opinions, not really history, but the prefaces are just
ridiculous in that regard.
Some quotes and commentary:
“It wasn’t easy
getting a country started. Mistakes were made – some big mistakes.” The
“mistakes” she is referring to are genocide, land theft, invasion, slavery,
etc. These are not “mistakes.” These were intentional actions taken by people
who felt it was their right to do so. Chalking up intentional bad decisions as
being “mistakes” completely erases the fact that this country was founded on
racism, genocide, and slavery.
“No nation has ever had a more impressive group of
founders.” Why does she say things like this? These statements make no sense
and are ahistorical. There’s no purpose for them except white nationalist
propaganda.
“Never before have people written their own constitution.
Never before have so many people been able to vote. Never before has a nation
offered its citizens complete religious liberty.” These statements simply are
not true. She is completely ignoring the history of Indigenous nations in the
Americas and likely many other traditional societies around the world. This may
be true of EUROPE, but not the whole world.
“Besides, everyone knows that in the United States ordinary
people can and do own land. And that is astounding in the 18th
century.” Again, these statements simply are not true. This may be true in
Europe, but not the entire world. The "need" to "own" land doesn't exist in most traditional societies. Collectively traditional societies have "owned" land together for thousands of years. This is a completely Eurocentric perspective on world history.
She calls people that don’t agree with people of all races
being represented by “We the people” – “cautious people.” She’s literally
saying racist people are simply “cautious.”
It also says, “homes need to be built, forests cleared, and
land explored.” Need? There is no “need” for this. This is all stolen land and
none of this “needed” to be done.
It states, “farming methods are about the same as they have
been for thousands of years.” This is only true of European methods. This not
true worldwide and this is not true in the Americas. Indigenous farmers and
scientists were always coming up with ways to advance and improve their
knowledge and methods.
The preface has a whole rant about how people are used to
slavery, it’s been practiced for thousands of years, so why is it a problem? This
is supposed to be from the perspectives of colonists, but it ignores the
glaring issue of chattel slavery which is very different. THIS TYPE of slavery
had NOT been practiced for thousands of years. At least she acknowledges that
Natives were also enslaved, but that doesn’t make up for the rest of her
blathering.
She uses outdated terminology – “slaves” and “slave owners.”
Of course, these were written in the 1990s. Many Euro-Americans hadn’t really
thought critically about the language they use in the 90s. But just be aware that this
language is used throughout the texts.
“This book is the story of America’s good beginnings, and of
the cruelty of slavery that will lead us to war.” Good beginnings?? Excuse me?
Invasion, genocide, theft, racism, white supremacy…these are “good beginnings?”
Again, this is nationalist propaganda, not history.
Chapter 1 – “The Father of Our Country”
There is no mention of Native Americans in this chapter. It
is about George Washington, but Washington had plenty of interaction with
Native nations. He was named “town destroyer” by the Haudenosaunee and ever
since then the name for “president” in their languages is “town destroyer.” His
treatment of Indigenous people/nations is significant. There is no excuse to leave that out.
This statement is false: “Remember, the birth of the United
States was a world-shaking event. We were the first modern nation to form a
people’s government, to write our own constitution, and elect our own leaders.”
She continues the trend from the last book of eliminating Native people from the
narrative. Oddly enough, this book has more mention of Natives than the last book. There are later chapters that, of course, do include Native people
and even a few (inaccurate) chapters about specific Native leaders, but we
start to show up less and less in history at this point. She starts to
eliminate us sooner than must curricula do. We usually disappear by the
1860s-1900. She starts that process by the mid to late 1700s. This should never
happen. We are part of almost every aspect of this history and into modern times. In fact, Native people literally shaped the entirety of US history in the 1700s. You can't really tell that history without us.
Chapter 2 – “About Being President”
Natives are not mentioned in this chapter. I do want to
point out that it says Washington “supervised” people at his Mount Vernon home.
No, he enslaved people. She is always trying to paint a rosy picture of
slavery. It’s always a “both sides” narrative that highly favors the
Euro-Americans. It gets so so so much worse in this book.
Chapter 3 – “The Parties Begin”
Native Americans are not mentioned in this chapter. There are a few issues of note, though.
The author calls people “good men” repeatedly. Men that enslaved
people/trafficked humans, men that committed genocide, men that were rapists,
etc. These are not “good men.”
This chapter makes a claim that people with disagreeing
ideals (conservatives and liberals mentioned here) working together “helped
make this country great” and “which is what has always happened in America.
That is not true in many other nations. In some countries, people who speak out
against the government are put in jail or even killed. Members of the losing
party are thrown out of the country or even killed. That doesn’t happen in
America.” This is entirely false. First of all, the idea that the US is “great”
is a moral value judgement, a matter of opinion. This author constantly inserts
her opinions (often odd and baseless) into history. And secondly, not only is this
greatly exaggerated (and I don’t know anywhere that simply throws people from
the “losing” party out of the country??), these types of things have happened
in the US. The US holds political prisoners. These types of things happened in
the colonies that started the US. The history of US politics is not squeaky
clean as this author would want you to believe.
Chapter 4 - No Native Americans mentioned.
Chapter 5 – Counting Noses
Regarding the census, she says “Almost 4 million of us were
counted in 1790….” “Six hundred and ninety-seven thousand, six hundred and
eighty-one of us were slaves. No one counted the Indians. We do know that half
of the land claimed by the U.S. government was held by Indians.” Notice the
words “us” and “Indians.” A white author should not be saying “us” when talking
about slavery. She also won’t drop the word “Indians.”
Later, regarding the 1800 census: “The census of 1800
counted 5.3 million Americans. One million of us were black, and 9 out of every
10 blacks were slaves.” Again, a white author should not be saying “us” here.
“The new country was much larger than just the 13 states.
When the British lost the Revolutionary War and signed a peace treaty, England
gave up land that stretched all the way to the Mississippi River.” There is no
mention of whose land it was or that they were “trading” land that wasn’t
theirs. There are multiple quotes like this.
Another such example: “(If you crossed the Mississippi, as Daniel Boone did, you
were in a foreign land. You were in Spanish territory until 1800. Then the land
was taken by France. And then – keep reading and you’ll find out who got it
next.)”
She constantly primitivizes Indigenous people. Here is one quote that does this: “On the frontier – beyond the mountains – people often lived in
crude huts and wore leather clothes adopted from Indian designs.”
“Boys and girls on the east coast – those with white skins –
lived much as their European cousins did. But there was an important
difference: people here didn’t have long traditions to guide them (as most
people on other continents did). So, Americans learned to think for
themselves.” This statement is false. They did have long traditions to “guide
them” – EUROPEAN TRADITIONS! US culture is and has always been largely European
based. They brought their traditions with them. Also she has this regular theme
of claiming USisans are better than the rest of the world because they “think
for themselves.” Um, so does the rest of the world? This is nonsense propaganda.
“That was true for black boys and girls, too. Their world
was radically different from that of their African cousins. They learned new
ways, and, at the same time, hung on to some of their old traditions.” Their
world was radically different BECAUSE THEY WERE ENSLAVED AND TRAFFICKED. This
statement is gross.
Chapter 6 - No Native Americans mentioned.
Chapter 7 – About President Adams
There are no Native Americans mentioned here, but there are
several examples of the authors bazar opinions here that I want to point out.
“Perhaps he stayed
too long in England. He grew fat and vain and peevish there.”
“John Adams was a
good man even when he didn’t have to be.” (Again, with this “good man” theme
when the people weren’t actually “good men.”)
“Perhaps Adams was just too independent to be a good
politician. Perhaps he had grown lazy by the time he became president.”
“If children acted the way the country’s leaders were
acting, their parents would tell them to stop being silly, make up, and be
friends.”
Chapter 8 - No Native Americans mentioned.
Chapter 9 - No Native Americans mentioned.
Chapter 10 – Meet Mr. Jefferson
Louisiana Purchase mentioned as if it was a legitimate
purchase from France. The problem is - European powers were buying and selling
land that they had no right to buy and sell. How did France get that land in
the first place? By claiming it without the consent of the people whose land it
actually was. Through colonization, which is inherently violent and harmful.
She says that Jefferson “sent an expedition to investigate” – the size, where
it ends, what it was like, etc. There is no mention of this being a military
spy mission…which is what it was. It was always a military reconnaissance
mission from the get-go.
Chapter 11 – Meriwether and William – or Lewis and Clark
It says Jefferson “…wanted to train him [Lewis] for an
exploring mission. Thomas Jefferson was filled with curiosity about the West.
He wanted to know about its land and its plants and animals; he wanted to know
about the Indians who lived there.” Again, this wasn’t an “exploring mission,”
it was a military reconnaissance mission. Why did Jefferson want to know all of
those things? For the purpose of invasion and colonization.
“The West was as unknown in 1803 as much of outer space is
now.” Unknown to whom? It certainly wasn’t unknown to the Indigenous people who
not only lived there, but managed and cultivated the land there.
Of Lewis it says: “As a soldier he learned the ways of the
Indians and how to survive in the wilderness.” As an “Indian,” I’d really like
to know what the “ways of the Indians” are because…this doesn’t exist?? There
are hundreds of nations, and each nation has their own unique ways. There is no
such thing as “ways of the Indians” any more than there are “ways of the Asians”
or “ways of the Europeans” as if they’re all the same.
Of Lewis and Clark, it says: “They chose men who were used to
living in the wild. They trained them until they were tough and disciplined.” The
fact is, they were already soldiers, so no…this isn’t quite accurate. They
hired soldiers. Because this was a military mission.
“They explored that big unknown land that the United States
had just bought from France…” Hopefully you already know what my thoughts are
on statements like this. *eyeroll*
“It was dangerous country, with unexpectedly high mountains,
difficult deserts, fierce animals, and wary Indians.” This is a major part of
US origin mythology. The “dangerous” west because of “Indians.” Wary? More like
Native nations that were defending themselves against foreign invasion.
“Wherever they went they took careful notes, made maps,
wrote down vocabulary lists of Indian words, and collected samples of strange
plants and animals. They added 200 species to the world’s list of known plants.
The Native Americans taught them to use some of those plants as
medicines, some as foods.” Emphasis mine. First of all, “Indian words?” Is that
like “European words?” As if they all speak the same language?? This is
monolithic nonsense. Same with “the Native Americans.” There is no such
thing! This is more monolithic nonsense. Also, the people that helped them and
taught them these things did so out of pity…because Lewis and Clark would have
died otherwise. It was more like “oh these poor children have no idea how to
live” rather than just “teaching” them things.
There is a quote from Jefferson as to his instructions to Lewis
and Clark. There is no mention that the purpose of such detailed notes was
invasion and colonization.
“President Jefferson wanted to know all about the Native
Americans who inhabited the land; he wanted Lewis and Clark to establish
friendships with the Indians and prepare for trade with them.” Why did Jefferson
want to know this? For the purpose of invasion and colonization. It was reconnaissance.
He didn’t want Lewis and Clark to establish “friendships” with Natives…he wanted
them to spy on them.
It says they might not have been successful if it weren’t
for “…an Indian woman named Sacajawea.” With a poor pronunciation guide for her
name. It’s just wrong. Then everything else said about her is mythology and not
reality. More US origin mythology.
“Sacajawea was 16 and married to a Frenchman. She was about
to have a baby. Everyone was excited about that.” No, she was not “married” to a
Frenchman, she was purchased by him and was ONE of his Indigenous sex slaves. I’m
guessing Sacajawea wasn’t too excited about having her rapist’s baby.
“In the spring, when Lewis and Clark were ready to start out
again, they hired Sacajawea’s husband as a translator of Indian languages.
Sacajawea came along with her baby strapped to her back. But it was Sacajawea
who turned out to be the helpful one; her no-good husband was lazy.” This perpetuates
they mythology of her tragic story. She didn’t just “come along,” she was
forced to…by the man who purchased her. And he was forced to within only months
of having a baby. This is a time she should be resting and healing, instead she
is being dragged along to help the initiation of invasion and genocide of her
own people.
“When she was a child, Sacajawea had been kidnapped from
this very tribe. The white men had brought her home.” This makes it sound as if
Lewis, Clark, and her enslaver Charbonneau, were benevolent and bringing her home.
They were not. They had no idea this would happen and it’s not like she had the
opportunity to STAY home with her family. She was forced to leave them yet
again by Lewis, Clark, and Charbonneau.
Chapter 12 – An Orator in a Red Jacket Speaks
This chapter is somewhat sympathetic to Natives, but still
written in a racist and Eurocentric way. Eurocentrism is sneaky like this
sometimes. It’s the WAY non-European cultures and people are written about.
“The new Americans wanted Indian land and they didn’t know a
fair way to share it.” There is no “fair way” to share something that was
violently stolen. This is a ridiculous statement.
“The Indians would lose most of their land. No one realized
that in 1805, which was when Red Jacket spoke – though perhaps some understood
that the Native Americans would not give up their land easily. Terrible Indian
wars lay ahead.” They would not “lose” most of their land. This is passive language
that puts the blame on Native people. They would have most of their land
STOLEN. This is an important distinction. She regularly uses passive language
like this as to not speak ill of her precious “founders.” I’m sure by 1805 most
people knew this because that was the goal.
Chapter 13 – The Great Tekamthi, Also called Tecumseh
Same as the last chapter, this chapter is somewhat
sympathetic to Natives, but still written in a racist and Eurocentric way.
One section ends with “…and leave the hunting lands of the West
for the Indians.” These aren’t “hunting lands.” This is Eurocentric language that
is used to make themselves feel better about stealing land and displacing
Natives. If it wasn’t their homes, just “hunting land,” it’s not so bad, is it?
But this was the HOMELANDS of Native nations. This is language that is used to
discredit Indigenous claims to land.
“He would make the white men go. He would do it by uniting
the Indian tribes.” Wow, so Tecumseh united ALL the “Indian tribes?” Sigh. This
is monolithic language that does nothing to educate people about what Tecumseh
really did. He united many Native nations in the Ohio Valley area, like the
Shawnee, Potawatomi, Kicakapoo, Ho-Chunk, etc. But he didn’t unite “the Indian
tribes.” That’s a ridiculous statement.
It says his brother was a “shaman.” The word “shaman” is incorrect.
Native nations do not have “shamans.” This word is from eastern religions, not
ours.
“They told them to go back to Indian ways and to be proud of their heritage.
And the Indians did that, too.” Again, there are no “Indian ways,” there are lifeways
that are specific and unique to each nation.
“Most of the Indiana Territory, by treaty, was supposed to
be Indian land. But white settlers were moving in. Harrison was afraid that
Tecumseh was too powerful, that the Indians would endanger the white settlers.”
It wasn’t “supposed” to be “Indian land,” it WAS, by law, their land. White
squatters were invading. Native nations were defending themselves against this
invasion, not “endangering white settlers.”
Chapter 14 – Osceola
Again, this chapter is somewhat sympathetic to Natives, but
still written in a racist and Eurocentric way.
She calls Osceola “the Indian boy” when he was a child. This
is disrespectful.
The term “Indian civil war” is used in reference to the war
of 1812. This was not an “Indian civil war” any more than any other European
war where Native nations joined sides was. This was a European war on stolen
land. That’s it. Just because Native nations took sides, doesn’t make it an “Indian
civil war.”
“Although many didn’t understand it at the time, it was a
disaster for both groups of Indians.” NATIVE NATIONS ARE NOT “GROUPS.”
“The Indians who lived in Florida were called Seminoles.
They were a mixture. Many had been Creek, a few were of the old, mostly extinct
tribes; some were wanderers and outcasts; some were blacks who had been
slaves.” Surprisingly, the mixture of who the Seminole are, is correct.
However, they were not simply “the Indians who lived in Florida.” This monolithic
language makes it sound like they were the ONLY nation in Florida, which is not
correct. The way this is written is problematic.
“The women farmed, the men hunted. Because the climate was
warm, their houses were simple roofed platforms on stilts that kept them off
the moist ground.” While there is nothing “incorrect” about these statements,
they’re written in a Eurocentric way that makes them sound primitive. Yes,
women were in charge of agriculture and men were hunters in Seminole society,
but most other things were not divided by gender. Men and women participated in
arts, storytelling, religion, medicine, etc. It is Eurocentric values of patriarchal
society and strict gender roles that lead writers like this to focus on such
concepts. This isn’t noteworthy unless you’re really diving into the societal structure
of Seminole culture. Also calling traditional engineering and architecture “simple”
is insulting and primitivizing.
“Like Tecumseh, he stood out among the others. He seemed
braver and more truthful.” Why is a non-Native, non-Seminole or Shawnee author
making value judgements like this? Not that it’s a bad statement, but her
opinions don’t belong here.
There is a small breakout box about stickball, but she keeps
calling it “lacrosse” which is a modern game that was based on traditional
stickball. Stickball is not the same as Lacrosse. It also says “His [George Caitlin]
words here describe Choctaw men playing a similar game; both games were like
lacrosse.” This is a caption for a painting, but again, the games were not “like
lacrosse.” The games are the origins of modern lacrosse. Lacrosse is like stickball.
Chapter 15 – The Revolutionary War Part II, or the War of
1812
“Capturing ships and holding territory – those are two
pretty good reasons for fighting. There was a third reason that wasn’t so good.
Many Americans wanted Indian land. But the English and their western forts had
become friends and protectors of the Indians.” I would never call reasons for
war “good.” But beyond that, they hadn’t become “friends,” they became
political allies. Language like “friends” is patronizing and discredits the
political nature of Native nations. Then Natives aren’t even mentioned again.
She did talk about the Creeks and the Red Sticks in the previous few chapters,
but briefly. Even though that was a huge part of the war of 1812, she doesn’t
mention it here.
Pg 83 has a story about “the Star-Spangled Banner” but it
completely skips the 3rd stanza. It says “We’re skipping the third
stanza – which is not often sung. The fourth stanza…” and then goes into the
fourth stanza which is ALSO not often sung, so why completely skip over the 3rd
with the excuse of “it’s not often sung?” probably because it’s racist and she
doesn’t want to admit that in the book.
Chapter 16 - No Native Americans mentioned.
Chapter 17 – That Good President Monroe
This chapter goes into the whole Florida taken from Spain,
Jackson sent to capture “runaway slaves” and then it says “but he did more than
that. He had learned to fight as the Indians fought. He burned villages and
destroyed crops. He captured, killed, and humiliated the Seminoles.” This is
about the First Seminole War, but seriously she keeps saying things like “learned
to fight as the Indians fought.” Not all Native nations fought the same way.
“Lots of people in the United States couldn’t wait to move
to Florida. But what about the Seminoles? They had to make way for the white
settlers.” They didn’t “have” to “make way” for anyone. They were forced to by
greedy violent people. But none of this was a “have to.” It was all choice on
the part of the invaders. This language is gross.
“James Monroe and John Quincy Adams decided something needed
to be done to keep Europe out of the Americas” This just made me laugh…in a sad
disgusted way. THEY ARE EUROPEANS. USians ARE Europeans. They’re the invaders.
Chapter 18 - No Native Americans mentioned.
Chapter 19 - No Native Americans mentioned.
Chapter 20 – Old Hickory
She refers to Andrew Jackson as “Andy.” This is just strange.
“By the time he was 30 he owned two large plantations near
Nashville.” As if that’s an accomplishment? These were worked by enslaved
people.
“Andrew Jackson was a man of action, a born leader who was
already doing things and going places and changing the world he lived in.” As
if he was doing all positive, good things. He was a horrible man and president,
though. This is Eurocentric glorification of a genocidal maniac.
“Andrew Jackson did change the presidency – it was never the
same again. Most people think he made it stronger.” Who are “most people”
here?? Whose opinion is she talking about? “It helped that he had good manners,
natural manners.” Sorry, not sorry, people with good manners don’t commit
genocide.
The entire chapter is positive praise for one of the worst
and most horrifying presidents in US history.
Chapter 21 – Yankee Ingenuity: Cotton and Muskets
“People didn’t practice scientific farming. They often
destroyed the land by growing the same crops year after year….” In this
statement “people” refers to white people only. “People” is not the default for
“white!” This type of wording needs to stop. Euro-Americans specifically didn’t
practice scientific farming. Indigenous people in the Americas, as well as
around the world, DID practice scientific farming. They did NOT destroy the
land. They DID practice crop rotation long before Europeans/Euro-Americans
understood the concept.
“The south had been having economic problems. Slavery wasn’t
as useful as it had been in the early colonial days.” “There wasn’t enough work
for the slaves.” “Slaves became very valuable again.” These are all incredibly
problematic statements. Unfortunately they’re not the worst this book has to
offer.
Native Americans aren’t mentioned here though.
Chapter 22 – Going Places
“Road building was a new science” Really? Because I’m pretty
sure Natives in North and South America has been building road systems for
thousands of years. What she means here is MODERN road building was a new
science. But roads themselves were not.
She keeps calling things “wilderness” and “the wilds” in
this chapter. I have addressed this multiple times, so I won’t again. But it’s
just wrong.
No Native Americans (sans “two Indian boys”) mentioned in
this chapter.
Chapter 23 – Teakettle Power
This chapter praises railroad expansion, which is gross
because that was…you guessed it! Invasion and genocide. But what’s even more
ridiculous is that she doesn’t even mention Native Americans in this chapter…a
chapter about invading more Native land (even land guaranteed by Congress and
treaty as being off limits to whites). You literally can’t teach the history of
railroad expansion adequately and appropriately without talking about the
impact on Native nations and the significant (and powerful) Native resistance.
Chapter 24 – Making Words
This is about Sequoyah. And good heavens, this entire thing
is HORRIBLE.
“A white man would take words, turn them into shapes, and
scratch them on a slate or draw them on a piece of paper. Then another man
could look at those shapes and say the first man’s words. Was it magic?
Sequoyah could draw pictures of things he could see. But you can’t see words.
You can’t touch words. How can they be pictured? Sequoyah was determined to
find out.” This is so racist. Not only did some Native nations already have
writing systems or systems of recording information in various forms, not just “white
men”, no one thought it was “magic.”
“But no Cherokee could read or write his own language,
because reading and writing were unknown to Indian tribes. Indian stories and
speeches were remembered and retold by orators, or storytellers, or singers.” No.
Reading and writing was not “unknown” to “Indian tribes.” It was not something the
Cherokee practices prior to this, but some other Native nations DID. The idea
that no Native Americans had writing before Europeans is a racist myth.
“…some thought the symbols were dangerous witchcraft.” No,
they did not. Some Cherokee thought that the practice of writing was too close
to being witchcraft, but they didn’t just think his “symbols” were witchcraft themselves.
“The problem with the Indians, said many white men and
women, was that they were “savages” and “uncivilized.” By that they meant that
the Indians did not do and think as the white people did. But the Cherokees
confounded the whites. Many of them did live as the whites did. Some Cherokees
married white people. Some combined the two ways of life.” This whole thing is
just racist. She loves to call us the S word, which is a racial slur. She uses
it a lot. But many Cherokee “did live as the whites did” because they were
forced to assimilate. It was essentially assimilate or die. Many people thought
assimilation was the only way to survive. This wasn’t a random “choice” people
made and making it out to sound like they just did this because they wanted to
is dishonest.
There is a big description about how they were super
assimilated and how great that was. She writes about it as if it was a wonderful
thing. It’s like she actually believes we were “uncivilized” and Europeans saved
us from ourselves. It’s disgusting.
“The Cherokees formed a government” Um, they already had
one. It’s just that they formed a new, more European style government.
She uses Eurocentric language to say people came to the “New
World” looking for land. Land in the East was “full.” As if it was logical and
right to keep invading other peoples land.
“That was when they discovered a problem: most of that
frontier belonged to the Indians. ‘Why should the Indians have so much?’ they
asked. ‘Isn’t there enough land for everyone?’ So they pushed west. Some of
them put up their cabins on Indian lands. Many wanted to live peacefully with
the Indians. Some didn’t. In Europe they had read that the Indians were
ruthless savages.” Again, she loves calling us the S word. She does it
completely unironically as if she really thinks of us that way. But calling our
existence a “problem?” That’s gross. The European/Euro-American racist concept
of “the Indian problem” can be taught about in a non-racist way. This isn’t it.
“The Cherokees had a warrior tradition. They didn’t know
which white people were friendly and which ones weren’t.” Don’t Europeans have
a “warrior tradition?” Don’t most cultures in the world? This isn’t unique to
the Cherokee or Native nations. But it’s mentioned because we have to be
portrayed as “fierce” S words by this author. It’s the only way she writes
about us. Again with the patronizing word “friendly.” They were political and
engaged in diplomacy. They didn’t know which white people wanted to murder them.
“They just knew their land and lives were being threatened,
so they went on raids and killed white people and burned their cabins and
farms. The settlers didn’t know which Indians could be trusted and which ones
were killers, so they went on raids and killed Indians and burned their homes
and fields. Life on the frontier was terrifying – and very dangerous.” No, they defended themselves the way any other
nation would in that situation. This whole “both sides” narrative she pushes is
a racist dog whistle. Life on the frontier was only “terrifying and very dangerous”
because white people were literally illegally invading other people’s nations with
the explicit purpose of killing anyone in their way so they could have what
they wanted.
Then she claims that “Some leaders like George Washington
and James Madison tried to find ways to protect the Indians.” No...absolutely,
no, they did not. George Washington was literally called “town destroyer” by
the Haudenosaunee.
“…all Indians should live west of the Mississippi. Most
white Americans – including Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson – agreed. They
all thought the Indians would be safe there, and could live in peace.” Removal
had NOTHING to do with “Indians” being sent to “safety.” This is disgusting and
absurd and complete revisionist history. There is nothing correct about this
statement at all.
“The Cherokees didn’t want to move. They loved their land.”
That’s it??? It’s because they just loved their land?? How about they didn’t
want to move because THEY ARE A SOVERIGN NATION with every right to stay
exactly where they were without foreign invaders illegally pushing them out.
“The Cherokees had no choice. Even though they had their own
nation and were governing themselves, they had to go.” They didn’t “have” to
go. They were illegally forced to go. She writes about history as if these
things were just inevitable and “had” to happen, but they didn’t.
A picture caption says: “by the time they had to move westward, few Cherokees lived in the old ways as this man did, hunting, fishing, and gathering. Most were farmers and traders.” Wow. Just no. The Cherokee have ALWAYS been farmers and traders!! For thousands of years!
Chapter 25 – A Time to Weep
This title is not secular. It’s clearly a Christian bible
reference.
It claims “As they went they wept, because they didn’t want
to go. They didn’t want to leave their homes, their farms, their hunting
grounds, the land of their fathers and mothers.” This is NOT why it is called
the Trail of Tears. While being illegally forced from their homelands was part
of the sadness, this is called the “Trail of Tears” because thousands of people
were MURDERED. Because this was a genocide.
Then it says “The people who wept were Native Americans.”
Again with the generic “the Native Americans” Which ones?? This chapter is
about the Cherokee. It should say “The people who wept were Cherokee.”
It then calls the Cherokee “stubborn” because they refused
to move from their homelands as was their sovereign right to refuse. This is
not “stubborn.” It’s the law.
“Jackson was popular. He was a man of the people, a man of
the frontier, in many ways was a good president.” She really loves to praise
Andrew Jackson. Gross.
Then there is a whole page that focuses on a white
missionary named Samuel Worcester – “…who had come to the Indian territory to
teach school and to preach Christian doctrine.” It’s all written in a very positive
way.
Of John Marshall she says,
“He was a man with a mind as straight as an Indian’s arrow.” Is a ridiculous
comparison like this really necessary?
Regarding Jackson’s refusal to follow the ruling of the
Supreme court “Our American system of checks and balances failed. I am sorry to
have to write this. It was a terrible moment in U.S. history. But the truth
needs to be told.” – Oh…NOW the truth matters to her? After all this untruthful
history??
“People in Georgia wanted Indian land. (I don’t want to pick
on just Georgia. The same thing happened in many other states.) So the Indians
of the eastern woodlands went west. Some fought before they went. The Sauk and
Fox in Illinois fought especially hard, but their cause was hopeless.” All the
nations fought to protect themselves, some did it physically, others through
the courts, but all fought. Calling the self defense of nations “hopeless” is
another baseless opinion she didn’t need to insert.
“The Choctaws were the first, they moved in 1831.
Three years later the Chickasaws trudged west.” Emphasis mine. This is passive
language. They didn’t “move.” They didn’t just “trudge west.” They were forcibly
removed by Euro-Americans. She continuously puts the blame on Native people
through passive language like this.
“The government said the new land would be theirs forever. But when the white people moved west they forgot their promises to the Indians.” They did not “forget.” It was intentional.
Chapter 26 – The Second Seminole War
This chapter is a somewhat inaccurate, but heavily Eurocentric,
overview of the second Seminole War.
“Some white settlers were shooting and burning and looting.
Some Seminoles were shooting and burning and looting. There was only one way to
satisfy the homesteaders and protect the Indians, said most white people. The
Seminoles must move.” Again, the “both sides” narrative is racist. The Seminole
were defending themselves from violent invaders. They had every right to do so.
The white settlers were the invaders that had no right to do so.
In contrast to the assimilated White Stick Creeks, “The
Seminoles lived an Indian life. They had black friends. Some were blacks
themselves.” Not only is the language regarding Black people outdated, again
there is no such thing as “an Indian life.” They lived a SEMINOLE life.
Regarding the leader who was sent to “conquer the Seminoles”
– “Dade’s troops were slaughtered.” She doesn’t use the word “slaughtered”
to describe what Europeans and Euro-Americans did to Indigenous people. She
only uses it to describe what Native people did in rightful self-defense. This
is a distortion of history and racist.
Regarding the invading party – “the American soldiers were
suffering from heat, disease, and frustration – as well as Indian attack.” No,
they were not suffering from “Indian attack,” THEY were the attackers. The Seminole
were suffering from white attacks. The Seminole were rightfully defending
themselves.
It claims the Seminoles were the ones that raised the white
flag of truce, and this is how Osceola was captured. It’s the other way around,
the US raised the white flag as a trick. More specifically, General Thomas
Jessup raised the white flat as a trick. The idea that the Seminole were the
ones who raised a white flag is just a flat out lie.
“Most of the Seminoles who were left went west to the Indian
territory.” This is passive language. It places the blame on the Seminole. They
didn’t just “go west,” they were forced…by the US. Passive language about these
topics are a huge issue throughout these books. And it wasn’t even “most” of
the Seminole. Some Seminole went west, some didn’t. Some are still there in
Florida.
“In the end, no one won the Seminole War.” Um yes…the
Seminole did. The Seminole won and never signed a peace treaty with the US.
Chapter 27 – History’s Paradox
I can’t really type out quotes of how horrible this chapter is,
the whole thing is horrible. It is about slavery. She has extremely warped and
racist views about slavery. As I read this chapter, my thoughts ended up being “It
just keeps getting worse.” I’ll just leave photographs of the pages so you can
see for yourself.
 |
No Native Americans mentioned (even though Natives were enslaved in the Americas from 1492 to 1865. She briefly mentions this in the preface, but nowhere else).
Chapter 28 – A Man Who Didn’t Do as His Neighbors Did
The end of the 1700s/beginning of 1800s “It was the Age of
Reason. People were using their minds, reading books, and asking questions.” Um…I’m
pretty sure people have been doing that for thousands of years. Again, she uses
“people” to mean Europeans only. She regularly makes white people the default
of the word “people.” It was only the “Age of Reason” in Europe and most of
their ideas came from BIPOC people around the world, including ideas from
Native nations in the eastern woodlands areas.
Alas, yet again there are no Native Americans mentioned in
this chapter and it is not secular either.
Chapter 29 – African Americans
This chapter starts with a weird unnecessary statement about
Pangea. Beyond that, this whole chapter is a nightmare.
“…some of Africa’s children were torn from their roots and
transplanted to America.” This is passive language. She loves to not place
blame where it belongs.
“Like the people who came here from Europe or Asia, they
were changed by the American land.” This is a straight up racist erasure of Indigeneity.
Repeatedly just saying we “came from Asia” instead of acknowledging our Indigeneity
is inaccurate and harmful. Also, Europeans weren’t “changed by the American
land,” they were changed by developed Indigenous civilizations that they
invaded and took over the infrastructure that already existed.
“Soon they were different from the brothers and sisters they
had left behind. Soon they were no longer Africans. Now they were Americans –
African Americans.” Wow no.
“An African may have come to the newly discovered land on
the first of Columbus’s voyages. By 1501, Africans were living in the
Caribbean. In 1619 they were living in Jamestown, Virginia, and, a few years
later, at Plymouth, Massachusetts.” As if it was all voluntary?? This just says
they were “living” in these places as if they came here on their own free will.
This is extreme erasure of true history.
“Africans cleared the woods, tilled the soil, planted
tobacco, and harvested cotton. They were farmers, trailblazers, mountain men,
cowhands, and pioneers. They were Americans.” Holy wow, this is so horrible.
They were FORCED to do these things. She writes as if this was all a choice.
They were not considered “Americans” by white people!
No Native Americans are mentioned. I only mention this because I do for any chapter that doesn't mention us for the main purpose of my reviews. Despite the long history of community building and sharing between African Americans and Natives, I still wouldn't really expect mention of Natives in a chapter like this.
Chapter 30 – The King and His People
This chapter is entirely passive voice about cotton itself
being the cause of chattel slavery and it being a tyrannical king. It’s absurd and full
of horrible opinions.
Of the human traffickers/enslavers she says, “They were
smart, and lucky, too. Each of them bought a little land, worked it, bought a
slave or two, worked them, bought more land, and soon had a whole plantation.” This
is said as if this is positive and good. She calls them “smart and lucky”?! For
trafficking in kidnapped humans??
“Walk in woods like that and you may see goblins and spooks
and little people; soon you’ll think up your own stories.” WOAH. If you don’t
know the history of the word “sp**ks” look it up. In this context it is a
racial slur.
Then it falsely states that most lynchings in the south
between 1840 and 1860 were white people, “There was almost no lynching of
slaves – they were worth money.” This completely erases the actual history of
lynching Black people (and sometimes other BIPOC as well). Most of those early
supposedly “white” people that were lynched were Mexicans, Mexican-Americans,
or Indigenous people, not actually white. And just because enslaved people
weren’t often lynched because of their “value” to human traffickers, that doesn’t
mean free Black people and self-emancipated (“escaped”) Black people weren’t
targeted. She is clearly trying to downplay the racial history of lynchings.
“If you want to understand about slavery and the conflict
between blacks and whites, you will need to do a lot of reading and thinking.
Especially if you want to be fair.” WHAT?? There is no “fairness” on this topic.
She is yet again trying to “both sides” this horrific history.
“You will read tales of kind masters and happy slaves…” AGAIN,
WHAT?? This is a racist myth created to make white people feel better about the
history of slavery in the US.
“…and you will read stories of viciousness, cruelty, and
abuse. There is both truth and exaggeration in most of these stories.” WOW. Just
racist.
“Yes, there was terrible, brutish, inexcusable meanness in
slavery. But most slave owners – even if they were cruel – thought of their
slaves as valuable property. They might beat them, but they tried not to do
them serious harm. They needed to keep their property healthy.” This is
horrifying and disgusting.
“Yes, there were kind slave owners who cared for the people
they owned and treated them well. There was genuine affection between blacks
and whites.” I can’t even at this point. Sorry for losing my professionalism
here.
Then it goes on to talk about being illegal to teach slaves
to read and a woman going to jail for it and said “Whites were losing their
freedom, too” as if this is about them?!?!
I am disgusted more and more as these books go on. No Native Americans mentioned.
Chapter 31 – Abolitionists Want to End Slavery
Another disgusting chapter.
“Don’t think this was a case of good Northerners and bad
Southerners.” – This starts out correct….
“Many white Southerners hated slavery and treated blacks
decently. And many white Northerners didn’t seem to know about the Golden Rule
(“Do unto others…”). Northern blacks were rarely given the rights of citizens:
in most places they weren’t allowed to vote or serve on juries. In the North,
blacks often held the worst jobs, and black children were usually not allowed
in white schools.” – and then COMPLETELY misses the mark. No, it’s not because
some white Southerners were good, and some white Northerners were bad. It’s
because RACISM. That’s literally the answer. Racism and white supremacy. North
– bad, South – bad. All bad. It is a white supremacist country. BOTH ARE BAD.
No Native Americans mentioned (again, only saying this for the main purpose of this review, I mention it for any chapter that doesn't).
Chapter 32 – Frederick Douglass
This chapter starts out okayish, but then it says that as a
young child he was sent to be a “companion to a little white boy. For a slave,
that was a lucky break.” There is absolutely nothing “lucky” about being enslaved.
She’s still trying to claim slavery wasn’t “that bad.” The rest of the chapter surprisingly
isn’t horrible, but I think that is because it is mostly quotes from Frederick
Douglass himself.
There is a section at the end about “Walking Across the Map”
in the time of Andrew Jackson’s presidency. It is, of course, very whitewashed
and full of passive language. There is very little mention of Natives and all
of it is passive and whitewashed. No surprise there.
Of course, I would not expect Natives to be mentioned here, and we're not.
Chapter 33 – Naming Presidents
This chapter is about presidents 8-15. It’s propaganda
mostly. She also claims that all of the first 7 presidents were “outstanding,”
including enslavers and Andrew Jackson. Native Americans are essentially not
mentioned here (brief reference).
Chapter 34 - No Native Americans mentioned.
Chapter 35 - No Native Americans mentioned.
Chapter 36 – Liberty for All?
This is the opening: “How do you think the nation is doing?
Are you discouraged? After all, there is slavery, some people are being
horrible to the Native Americans, and there is much lawlessness in the land.
Does it look hopeless for freedom, democracy, and fairness? Well, don’t be
discouraged. Actually, the United States is doing amazingly well.” I’d like to know
– in what world is invasion, genocide, the chattel slavery, and white supremacy
as a national foundation “doing amazingly well?”
And the chapter ends very quickly with more propaganda and baseless opinion of the author.
This is from the last review, but it needs repeating: I want to explain why I point out “there is no mention of Natives in this chapter” instead of just skipping it. Excluding Natives from history is as “American as apple pie.” We disappear from the textbooks and stories and are said to have disappeared ourselves. We become so insignificant in the mentality of modern Euro-Americans that we aren’t included in history as books move through time. We become invisible. 87% of textbooks don’t mention us past 1890. We are still invisible today and this has a massive impact on us and our continued oppression. Erasing us from history is an intentional and vital piece of US propaganda. The reality is that we should be included in pretty much every aspect of US history, because we have been part of it since its beginning, willingly or not. I have taught thousands of US school children about Native peoples over the years. I am regularly confronted with questions of my existence. “Are you a real Indian?” even though I introduce myself as a Native woman. “Are you from India?” because they don’t understand that Natives didn’t all disappear. I have been told by children and adults that they thought we didn’t exist anymore. Reclaiming Native Truth is a project that found that 40% of adults in the US don’t know that we still exist. Hakim actively participates in this propaganda in the way she writes this series. My reviews will most likely get shorter and shorter as I move through the books because we will disappear from them completely. I always point it out because I want you to notice.I continue to recommend staying far, far away from these books and telling others to do the same. They are absolute trash and cause harm.
No comments:
Post a Comment